Inheritance Tax Debate

It's very possible that I'm missing some vital concept but start from the other direction, as if inheritance never existed: The point of taxes is to contribute to society for the help they have given you for resources we all share (infrastructure, national defense, education, etc). After you die, why should your accumulated wealth, produced with the help of society, go to only your offspring instead of society at large?

Speaking in extreme generalities, the people in favour of taxes believe that there is only a tenuous link between improving society and getting paid money. That the state's view of what would be an improvement is superior to the view of wealthy individuals. Anyone being wealthy is somewhat suspect because they have claim on resources and the pro-tax types don't believe they can use those resource more effectively than a government.From that perspective, the handover of assets that h

Sounds like a good argument for a steep inheritance tax.

People ought to be able to enjoy the wealth they've earnt over their lifetime without having to defend it from the state.But when they die, IMO their wealth ought to be redistributed to society. Their own kids didn't earn it any more than the neighbour's kids did. I'm okay with increasing inheritance tax provided we simultaneously reduce income tax rates. That would produce a fairer society where people are more productive.There will be those who (fairly) contest the do

Inherited wealth shouldn't be taxed at all: the testator has already payed the taxes when he was earning all those money he left. Taxing it again is just plain robbery.

It‘s unfair to keep large amounts of generational wealth untaxed in the family while hard working people are taxed.

Death is often called the great equalizer. By reducing/nullifying inheritance taxes you ensure wealth concentration will escape it, and aggravate the issue. We already live in a country (world, really) where more income is gained through owning capital than through working. However you look at it, it is really hard to justify.

Well, there is nothing bad/good necessarily, but it doesn't really feel right imo. How is it fair for somebody to benefit from something without having worked for it? There is a baseline level of providing for children, providing education, providing housing, caring, etc. but such high levels of wealth being passed on makes no sense and is just obscene. The estate tax doesn't really effect many people, only an extremely small subset (some quick googling shows that over 11 million

From my point of view inheritance is a good thing because it ensures your family and loved ones will have a comfortable life once you pass away (kind of a life insurance).Nevertheless it also bothers that people who inherit large fortunes can live a luxurious life without having to do real work a single day in their lifetimes.Maybe putting a limit on how much wealth can be inherited by a single person would work better than a 100% estate tax. But this also raises another question, would y

Someone's working in both cases. In the case of inheritance it's the person who gave the money in their will. That person also already paid tax when they earned the money in the first place.If anything I think we should encourage rich people to give their money away (even if only to their children) since wealth consumed by a broader number of people leads to more happiness than if it's all consumed by one person. It's better for a $10 million fortune to be spent by 10 cons